That rendering sure does put a nail in the coffin of those who believe Plato used aionion to mean eternal. Eonian is a moving image Plato calls TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME

Time is not eternity. How can eternity be a moving image of time? LOL. Since eternity is timelessness.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Apocatastasis

Time is not eternity. How can eternity be a moving image of time? LOL. Since eternity is timelessness.

Readers, let's look back at the passage in question.

WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (imperceptible/aidiwn) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidion/imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aiwnios/eonian), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.

Readers, is it not clear that Plato is saying that the created image of time is eternal (aion/aionios), though moving according to number, whilst eternity (aion/aionios) itself rests in unity and is not subject to the passing of time?

Paul Hazelwood

What I'm noticing is that it seems important to try to force Tony to admit something in order for the facts to stand for themselves. The debate is fine, even if others are at a point where the words definition is not that critical, so what?

The problem is the territory when insults and personal comments are asserted as if that makes your point more valid.

Lets stop with the insults and either move on or present the facts, please. I'm tired of locked threads because of this garbage.

It is a vital question How was the word used in the Greek literature with which the Seventy were familiar, that is, the Greek Classics?

Some years since Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin(13) patiently and candidly traced this word through the Classics, finding the noun frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective until Plato, its inventor, used it. He states, as the result of his protracted and exhaustive examination from the beginning down to Plato, "We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of Aión, in common with other words; and no one of themEVER employs it in the sense of eternity."

When the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek by the Seventy, the word aión had been in common use for many centuries. It is preposterous to say that the Seventy would render the Hebrew olam by the Greek aión and give to the latter (1) a different meaning from that of the former, or (2) a different meaning from aión in the current Greek literature. It is self-evident, then, that Aión in the Old Testament means exactly what Olam means, and also what Aión means in the Greek classics. Indefinite duration is the sense of olam, and it is equally clear that aión has a similar signification.

In the Iliad and Odyssey Aión occurs thirteen times, as a noun, besides its occurrence as a participle in the sense of hearing, perceiving, understanding. Homer never uses it as signifying eternal duration. Priam to Hector says,(14) "Thyself shall be deprived of pleasant aiónos" (life.) Andromache over dead Hector,(15) "Husband thou hast perished from aiónos" (life or time.)

Dr. Beecher writes(16) "But there is a case that excludes all possibility of doubt or evasion, in the Homeric Hymn of Mercury, vs. 42 and 119. Here aión is used to denote the marrow as the life of an animal, as Moses calls the blood the life. This is recognized by Cousins in his Homeric Lexicon. In this case to pierce the life (aión) of a turtle means to pierce the spinal cord. The idea of life is here exclusive of time or eternity." These are fair illustrations of Homer's use of the word.

Hesiod employs it twice: "To him (the married man) during aiónos (life) evil is constantly striving, etc.(17) Ćschulus has the word nineteen times, after this manner: "This life (aión) seems long, etc.(18) "Jupiter, king of the never-ceasing world."(19) (aiónos apaustau.)

Pindar gives thirteen instances, such as "A long life produces the four virtues."(20)(Ela de kai tessaras aretas ho makros aión.)

Sophocles nine times. "Endeavor to remain the same in mind as long as you live." Askei toiaute noun di aiónos menein.(21) He also employs makraion five times, as long-enduring. The word long increases the force of aión, which would be impossible if it had the idea of eternity.

Aristotle uses aión twelve times. He speaks of the existence or duration (aión) of the earth;(22) of an unlimited aiónos;(23) and elsewhere, he says: aión sunekes kai aidios, "an eternal aión" (or being) "pertaining to God." The fact that Aristotle found it necessary to add aidios to aión to ascribe eternity to God demonstrates that he found no sense of eternity in the word aión, and utterly discards the idea that he held the word to mean endless duration, even admitting that he derived it, or supposed the ancients did, from aei ón according to the opinion of some lexicographers.

A similar use of the word appears in de Cćlo.(24) "The entire heaven is one and eternal (aidios) having neither beginning nor end of an entire aión." In the same work(25) occurs the famous passage where Aristotle has been said to describe the derivation of the word, which we have quoted on page 7, Aión estin, apo tou aei einai.

Mr. Goodwin well observes that the word had existed a thousand years before Aristotle's day, and that he had no knowledge of its origin, and poorer facilities for tracing it than many a scholar of the present, possesses. "While, therefore, we would regard an opinion of Aristotle on the derivation of an ancient word, with the respect due to extensive learning and venerable age, still we must bear in mind that his opinion is not indusputable authority." Mr. Goodwin proceeds to affirm that Aristotle does not apply aei ón to duration, but to God, and that (as we have shown) a human existence is an Aión. Completeness, whether brief or protracted, is his idea; and as Aristotle employed it "Aión did not contain the meaning of eternity."

Hippocrates. "A human aión is a seven days matter."

Empedocles, An earthly body deprived of happy life, (aiónos.)

Euripides uses the word thirty-two times. We quote three instances:(26) "Marriage to those mortals who are well situated is a happy aión."(27) "Every aión of mortals is unstable."(28) "Along aión has many things to say," etc.

Philoctetes. "He breathed out the aióna." Mr. Goodwin thus concludes his conscientious investigation of such of the Greek classics as he examined line by line, AION IN THESE WRITERS NEVER EXPRESSES POSITIVE ETERNITY."

In his Physic(29), Aristotle quotes a passage from Empedocles, saying that in certain cases "aión is not permanent."

I rest my case.

I am correct. neither Aion nor Aionion ever was used to mean eternal in the Bible or elsewhere.

Tony

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

"In Greek philosophy, notably Platonism, aion is employed to convey a philosophical notion which we commonly denote as "eternity". Generally speaking, this is the most well-known meaning of aion: ie. "eternity".

Looks like Tony made an oopsie. Afterall, Tony has been trying to tell us (contrary to virtually all Classical Greek scholarship) that Plato never used aion or aionios of eternity. Why then did Tony site Dr. Keizer's work, when it clearly contradicts his silly assertions? Perhaps because Tony didn't bother to actually read Dr. Keizer's work? Perhaps Tony didn't think anyone here would actually check her work? Perhaps this is a fine example of Tony's shoddy research method?

Apo; can you provide a link to the article or paper from which you pulled the above quote? I'd like to see it in context, because it seems to contradict the statement(s) following that I've cut and pasted: (Emphases Mine in bold)

In the non-biblical usage, Dr. Keizer notes three distinct meanings of aion: (1) "life," (2) "time," and (3) "entirety," or a wholeness or completeness or a totality relating to a function of time. (Hence the title of her study.) She notes that the biblical aion is a creation of God (having no divinity, as pagan philosophy put forth). Her study found that neither Philo, nor later Church Fathers use aion to refer to the eternity of God. 2 Dr. Keizer pointed out some conclusions regarding the usage and meaning of aion in the New Testament: 3

"Of decisive importance is the new usage of aion found in the New Testament, where we hear Christ speaking of 'this (present) aion,' 'the end of this aion,' and 'the coming (future) aion.' … To speak of 'this aion,' its 'end' and 'the aion to come' clearly lends to aion the meaning of a limited time. But at this point our findings with regard to the Old Testament meaning of `olam/aion can be supportive and supported. The New Testament indicates that 'this' and the 'coming' aion are not simply successive 'ages' or 'periods': the coming aion, as a restored, reborn world, will in the future completely replace the present one, while as a new 'horizon' of life it is also present already now."

Keizer, Life, Time, Entirety, pp. 251–252, emphasis mine

She notes further that:

"The biblical usage of aion led me to the conclusion that the word refers to a 'whole' or 'entirety' of time (also the 'whole'/'entirety' of time), the beginning and end of which we cannot 'see' or 'define', although we know that there is a beginning and also an end. I believe that the comparison with a 'horizon' is helpful. Maybe the most important conclusion is that aion designates an aspect of creation (not a property of God as He is in Himself), viz. the temporal aspect. And it is the Creator who has decided and decides beginning, end, and without-end of his creation."

Keizer, personal correspondence, December 17, 2004

Logged

God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.

Thanks Paul for your words of wisdom. There are several references to debate...maybe some are mistaken...this is a discussion forum (expected to be done with mutual and Christ-like respect)...not a debate forum. If anyone is under a mistaken assumption that it is, please read this excerpt from Martin's sticky post below.

"Although we always try to steer clear of topics that would take us too far away from a focus on the main mission of Tentmaker's Forum, as usual this will simply be a notice of increased moderation of behaviour rather than particular perspectives of Biblically rooted Christian Universalism. There are lots of forums on the web and plenty of opportunities for each of us to start our own forums at any time that we feel it's necessary. So, if moderation decisions around here start to become a little too uncomfortable to anyone here, we love you and wish you well on your journey to the forum of your dreams that will tolerate nothing but your perspective. However, this excerpt from a PM that I received this week is a testimony to the kind of behaviour that we will not be allowing around here any longer. And when we find someone engaging in this behaviour, please expect to be reprimanded and for your post to either be edited or removed from the forum:

If you have an ongoing issue with another member of this forum over your staunch stand regarding anything that you consider to be your understanding of the truth, please take the debate elsewhere. You're completely free to share, but you're not free to behave in the way described by the above quote. As always, that kind of behaviour can result in being banned, so please consider this a final warning regarding all of the above."

This thread has been cleaned up some, including many posts that were reported to the mods as inappropriate. As brothers and sisters, let's try to make our points while refraining from taking personal shots at each other. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Please refer back to the 2nd post up with Martin's excerpts wrt posting and moderation. Thanks, James.